WRITTEN QUESTION No. 836/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Practising dentistry
Date: 1996-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dentist, judgment of the Court (EU), physician, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment













EUR-Lex - 91996E0836 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0836

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 836/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Practising dentistry  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0090 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0836/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (12 April 1996)Subject: Practising dentistryThe Commission is undoubtedly well aware of the problems involved in interpreting certain points of Laws Nos. 409/85 and 471/88 (Italy) in relation to Directives 78/686/EEC ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1. )), 78/687/EEC ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10. )) and 93/16/EEC ((OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1. )) as regards practising dentistry. For example, it is unclear whether or not Law No. 471/88 prevents all doctors who practise stomatology from working as dental practitioners if they are included in the register of doctors, as is the case in France.Can the Commission therefore state whether the Court of Justice's judgment of 1 June 1995 (Case C 40/93) has the effect of depriving doctors registered as dental practitioners in application of Law No. 471/88 of the right to practise dentistry?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)The Commission is aware of the problems involved, for the Italian authorities, in interpreting certain points of Laws Nos 409/85 and 471/88. It would point out that Italian courts have sole jurisdiction for interpreting legislation, but that they may refer a matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling whenever they are called on to interpret points of Community law.In the judgment handed down on 1 June 1995 in Case C-40/93 Commission v Italy, the Court of Justice found that, by putting back the deadline (28 January 1980) laid down in Article 19 of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry ((OJ L 233, 24.8.1978. )) to the academic year 1984/85 as regards qualifications in medicine and surgery, Italy failed to comply with its obligations under Article 19 and under Article 1 of Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners.(1) At the time of adoption of Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC, which required Italy to create the specific profession of dentist, dentistry was practised in that country by doctors. By way of derogation, Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC authorized such doctors to continue practising dentistry and to move to other Member States as dentists, one condition being that they had begun training as doctors before 28 January 1980.This judgment has purely declaratory value and could not of itself produce in national law the effect mentioned by the Honourable Member, namely to deprive doctors registered as dental practitioners in Italy under Law No 471/88 of the right to practise dentistry. Indeed, pursuant to Article 171 of the EC Treaty, if the Court of Justice finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty, that Member State is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgment. The onus is therefore on the Italian authorities to bring Italian law into line with Community law. Nevertheless, the Italian courts must be able, where appropriate, to draw the conclusions that this judgment will have at national level and, in the event of any difficulties in interpreting Community law, to refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.